Tag: Matt Hancock

Below is the text of the statement made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 2 March 2020.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

While the world grapples with the challenge of coronavirus, it is vital that we do not lose sight of the important long-term reforms that we must make. Medicines and medical devices are evolving faster than ever. Not long ago, we could only record an ECG with hospital-grade equipment; now we can do it at home with a cheap device linked to our phone. Already, artificial intelligence is being used to discover new drug compounds. Now that we have left the European Union, we need a regulatory system that is nimble enough to keep up with those developments while maintaining and enhancing patient safety. That is what this Bill will achieve.

The aims of the Bill are fourfold. First, it gives us the means to depart from EU rules and regulations in future, moving at a faster pace, if that is what we choose to do as an independent, self-governing nation. Secondly, it ensures that we can easily amend regulation through secondary legislation without having to bring a new Bill before the House every time we need to revise the rules. That means our system of regulation will be flexible and responsive, quick to adapt to innovation and quick to respond when a safety issue emerges. Thirdly, the Bill will strengthen patient safety by strengthening the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, our world-class medicines and medical devices regulator. That includes giving it powers that were not available under the EU, including over registration of devices and disclosure. Fourthly, the Bill will ensure that we strike the right balance between capturing the benefits of innovation without compromising patient safety.

Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)

All those objectives of the Bill require a level of investment to bring about the innovations that we seek. The Prime Minister made a commitment of £200 million in September. How much private sector money does the Secretary of State expect that to leverage? What is our ambition?

Matt Hancock

We do not have a figure for medicines and medical devices specifically. As a nation, we have a goal that we should reach 2.4% of GDP spent on research. We are increasing the medical research budget; for instance, we are doubling the budget for research into dementia. As my right hon. Friend rightly points out, the public budget for research is only one part of it. There is huge private sector and charitable sector investment —for instance, from the Wellcome Trust. The Bill will allow research money—whether it comes from the public sector, private sector or third sector—to go further and get medicines and medical devices to NHS patients faster, as well as supporting our life sciences sector.

Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)

I recognise the Secretary of State’s support for innovative medical technology. I am interested in the registers to which he referred, covered in section 13 of the Bill, and in particular the need to ensure that we get the maximum benefit without their being too onerous. Will he give an assurance that there will be some kind of consolidation where there are multiple registers in the same field and that we will only collect information that is specific to the subject stated for the registers?

​Matt Hancock

It is almost as though the hon. Gentleman has read my speech. That is the broad intent of that part of the Bill. I will come to it in more detail in a moment, and I am glad about the constructive tone that has been adopted across the House when discussing the Bill.

As I said, the fourth purpose of the Bill is to get innovation while not compromising patient safety—indeed, I would argue that we will enhance patient safety by being able to use modern techniques. It will do that by requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to the safety of medicines and medical devices; to the availability of medicines and devices, because sometimes getting availability as fast as possible is crucial for both innovation and patient safety; and to the attractiveness of the UK as a place to conduct clinical trials and bring medicines and medical devices to market. I will come on to clinical trials in more detail.

Let me turn to the main parts of the Bill. The first part, covering clauses 1 to 7, gives us the ability to update the law relating to human medicines—for example, to reflect changes in manufacturing methods or new types of product. We need that ability because coming down the track are cutting-edge personalised medicines that a hospital might literally have to assemble at the patient’s bedside. Those include gene therapies, medical gases and 3D-printed tablets—bespoke treatments so tailored to the individual that they will only be produced once, with a shelf life that might be measured in minutes. It is just not appropriate to regulate those kinds of treatment in the same way as a mass-produced factory drug, with mandatory batch numbers and packaging information. The Bill gives us the flexibility to respond to those developments. It also allows us to make changes to the regulation of clinical trials, ensuring that we are a globally attractive market to test new drugs and treatments.

But the Bill is not just about the latest science and innovation. It also means that we can update the rules on things such as labelling requirements—for instance, whether the leaflet in a pill packet should have a digital equivalent; rules on how online pharmacies ensure that medicines reach their intended customer; and rules on how the medicine brokerage market works.

We have said that we want to do more to boost the role of our brilliant community pharmacists, and the Bill helps us to do exactly that. It will allow us to remove the barriers to hub-and-spoke dispensing once EU rules no longer apply. Large companies such as Boots already do that, but the law as it stands prevents small, independent pharmacies from joining this kind of arrangement if the hub is not part of the same retail business as the spokes. That is an unnecessary barrier for smaller businesses in the pharmacy sector, and the Bill means that we can remove those barriers.

It also allows us to continue to add to the range of healthcare professionals who can prescribe medicines, which will relieve pressure on the frontline NHS, and it gives us the ability to make rapid changes to regulations to ensure the availability of and access to medicines in an emergency; I am sure we can all understand right now why that is important. Nothing in the Bill changes all the regulations immediately. Instead, it is about getting ahead of the game and giving us the power to make these changes as and when we need to, suitably scrutinised by Parliament.​
The next part of the Bill concerns veterinary medicines. It broadly replicates the first part, giving us the ability to amend or supplement the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013. Changes could include, for instance, how veterinary medicines are supplied and the information that must be supplied with them. It sets out that, in making new regulations, we have an obligation to consider the safety of the medicines in relation to animals, humans and the environment. These are important matters, not least for me as the Newmarket MP. The Bill will ensure that we have a veterinary medicine system that is fit for purpose.

The third part of the Bill deals with the medical devices regulatory framework, covering everything from MRI scanners to embolisation coils and pacemakers to prophylactics. Like the first part, it allows us to fast-track a new diagnostic test in response to an emerging disease.

Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)

Is this not an example of how, having left the EU, we can now move at a much faster pace on a lot of regulatory things that are really important to our constituents?

Matt Hancock

Yes, that is right. This Bill empowers us to be able to move faster. Essentially, it empowers the UK to build a life sciences regulatory framework that is the best in the world—of course, working with EU partners, but also with partners from right around the world—and all with the intention of getting the most innovative products, as quickly as possible and as cost-effectively as possible, into the NHS. That is the goal of the entire Bill. It is a benefit of Brexit, but it is also worth doing in its own right.

The measures to strengthen innovation with respect to diagnostic tests again strengthen patient safety, because they strengthen the role of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. This includes, for instance, allowing us to legislate to create a comprehensive statutory register of medical devices in the UK. Such a register could be held by the MHRA, and we would make it compulsory to register a device along with information such as who manufactures and supplies it. This would mean that the MHRA could conduct post-market surveillance of devices in the UK, making it easier to trigger device recalls where a safety concern arises.

Indeed, we will enhance patient safety by giving the MHRA a new power to disclose to members of the public any safety concerns about a device. This was not possible while we were part of the EU. Previously, if an NHS trust raised a concern about a device and asked if similar reports had been received elsewhere, too often the MHRA was restricted in sharing that information; nor could it always routinely share information with the Care Quality Commission or other NHS national bodies. This Bill gives us the ability to share vital information about reporting patterns with the NHS family, and where necessary with the public, with enforcement powers that will be proportionate, transparent and suitably safeguarded.

Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)

I do not recognise the Secretary of State’s description that it was not possible to inform NHS bodies of concerns about machinery or devices. In my 33 years on the ​frontline, we received daily information about anything that was considered a danger or a failing, so I do not recognise that.

Matt Hancock

In some cases it was possible to share that information but not in all cases, and it will be possible now. I have no doubt that the hon. Member, like others on the frontline, will have received some information, but the MHRA is currently limited in the information that it can share with other NHS bodies. We are removing the limits on that information sharing, which of course needs to be done appropriately, but should not be set in primary legislation.

Our goal is this: we want the UK to be the best place in the world to design and trial the latest medical innovations. This Bill gives us the powers we need to make that happen. It will mean that the NHS has access to the most cutting-edge medicines and medical devices, with enhanced patient safety; it will help our life sciences seize the enormous opportunities of the 2020s, supported by a world-leading regulator; and it will help us pave our way as a self-governing independent nation. I commend the Bill to the House.

Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 25 February 2020.

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:

“notes that the Government is committed to fixing the crisis in social care; and supports the Government’s commitment to find a long term solution for the growing need for care and commitment to an ambitious three point plan, including extra funding every year, seeking a cross party consensus and ensuring the prerequisite of any solution is a guarantee that no one needing care has to sell their home to pay for it.”

This is a welcome opportunity to debate social care—a subject of vital importance—and I want to set out how we must rise to the challenges and celebrate all that is good. We must recognise at the start of the debate that there is much to celebrate, including the millions of people who work in social care, to whom we pay tribute. I want to welcome someone who is new to working in ​social care: my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), who has joined the team as Minister for Care. I pay tribute to her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), who led the care system so effectively and delivered a legacy of better training, better recruitment and a real focus on carers; that is a legacy to be proud of.

Let me start with the context for this debate. It is rightly about both adults of working age and older adults. The people of this country are living longer. Over the next decade, the population aged 75 and over is set to increase by 1.5 million, and over the next 20 years, the number of people aged 65 and over is set to increase by almost half. That is emphatically a good thing. More people living for longer is not some problem to be managed; it is an opportunity to be welcomed, and welcome it we do.

Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)

My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the significant challenge that an ageing population with multiple medical co-morbidities presents to the health and care system. In that context, it is not just about extra funding, which is obviously welcome to the care system; it is also about transforming the way we deliver care. Is it not time to consider a single point of commissioning for health and social care? If we were designing the system today, given the demographic challenges he has outlined, it would look very different from the system we have.

Matt Hancock

My hon. Friend is right that it is about more than just money. The money is, of course, important, but it is also about how the system is structured. There are parts of the country where the co-commissioning he calls for already exists, and we can see the improvement in efficiency that we get out of that. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) rightly mentioned those with learning disabilities and autism, of whom there are more than 2,000 in in-patient settings. We are reducing that number and supporting more people to move into the community, including in the example that she mentioned. She talked about the challenge of that requiring more money. Actually, community settings are often better for the patient and cost the taxpayer less. As my hon. Friend says, improving the commissioning and the system is a critical part of the solution, so that yet more people can be moved out of in-patient settings.

Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)

The Secretary of State talks about transforming care and services so that we focus more on prevention, early intervention and help in the community and at home. That is what we should be doing, so why, as the National Audit Office has just reported, have we seen less money spent on public health, primary care and community care under this Government in the last five years? This Government are obsessed with hospitals, which is not the way that we want to go—it is about care in the community and at home.

Matt Hancock

The hon. Lady is dead right, and I have changed that direction of travel. This year is the first year for a generation when there has been an increase in the proportion of the NHS budget going to primary and community care. That change was at the core of the long-term plan. I insisted on that because I ​entirely agree with her analysis that getting more support out into the community is critical. This has been going in the wrong direction for a generation, and we are just starting to fix it.

Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)

I want to pick the Secretary of State up on the point that he made a few moments ago. We had an exchange at the end of January about life expectancy. He says that life expectancy is increasing. It is absolutely clear from Professor Sir Michael Marmot’s report, and it has been clear since 2017, that life expectancy is stalling. Sir Michael said that

“life expectancy actually fell in the most deprived communities outside London for women and in some regions for men.”

I have written to the Secretary of State and I have not yet had a response, but he has an opportunity to correct the record now.

Matt Hancock

I saw the letter and I absolutely will reply to the hon. Lady. What I have said before, and I repeat now, is that life expectancy in this country is rising. There are parts of the country where that is not true.

Debbie Abrahams

It is flat.

Matt Hancock

It is not flat, it is rising, and it is really important that this debate, which is so critical, is based on the facts. The increase in life expectancy should be shared right across the country, and it is not, and we are determined to fix that. We are determined to ensure that life expectancy in this country rises everywhere. That is not the case and it needs to be the case, but life expectancy overall is going up. That is the fact.

Debbie Abrahams

The report says that it has almost ground to a halt since 2011. These are the facts, and there is an onus on the Minister to be absolutely clear about this. We cannot fudge this issue.

Matt Hancock

As I said, life expectancy is rising, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)

The Secretary of State will have seen Sir Michael Marmot’s report, launched today. Indeed, one of his own departmental officials spoke at the launch, because he could not make it, and said that no one could disagree with the analysis. Sir Michael Marmot says that life expectancy advances are flattening and even going backwards—they are decreasing—for the poorest 10% of women. Is Sir Michael Marmot wrong? Is that what the Secretary of State is saying?

Matt Hancock

No. What I am saying is that life expectancy, as I have repeated, is going up, but there are areas where it is not, and we will and we must tackle that. The challenge for us as a country is not to try to pretend that things are different to the facts. The challenge here, which Opposition Members will not accept, is that there are parts of the country where life expectancy is advancing rapidly and there are parts where it is not, and we must tackle that. We cannot have a decent policy conversation if half of the debate will not accept the facts on the ground.​

The Marmot report was published this morning. It is absolutely critical that we level up life expectancy. The fact that in Blackpool a healthy life expectancy for men is 53 years yet in Buckingham it is 68 years is a disgrace, and we will put that right, but you cannot put things right if you ignore the facts when you are starting.

Barbara Keeley

I just want to round this point off. What does the right hon. Gentleman think happens with life expectancy when 1.5 million older people are going without care? Does he not think that the impact of the lack of social care, especially on women in deprived areas, is a key factor?

Matt Hancock

I do not recognise those figures, because—

Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)

Because they don’t suit.

Matt Hancock

No, I do not recognise those figures because they are not the accurate representation of what is actually happening. There are many within that figure who are judged under legislation to need to pay for their own care, and they do. We have to start from a basis of fact and, frankly, until Labour Members start working on this from a basis of fact, it is very difficult to take their contributions seriously.

The critical thing is that, as life expectancy is increasing, more people are looking forward to ageing in comfort and dignity, and that is good news. Opposition Members may not like it. It is odd; they do not seem to want to think that life expectancy is going up. We have a duty to ensure that our social care system is equal to the task. There are many things we should be proud of in our social care system, although we would not have gathered that from the speech by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South. Some 84% of providers of social care are rated as good or outstanding, and 90% of people who receive care are satisfied with its standard. The proportion of adults with learning disabilities living in their own home or with their family has increased every year since 2014-15. That is good news, which we should welcome.

Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)

Is my right hon. Friend not right to say that life expectancy is continuing to go up? We would expect it to slow down, because we are not all going to live forever. The key thing is not just how long we live for; it is how long we live a high-quality, healthy life for.

Matt Hancock

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is the sort of analysis on which we can make decent policy progress, because it based on the facts, rather than on making things up.

Debbie Abrahams rose—

Matt Hancock

I will give way to the hon. Lady one more time and then I will move on, because we need to make some progress.

Debbie Abrahams

Again, for the record, let me say, as a former public health consultant, that healthy life expectancy is also going down.

​Matt Hancock

I will write to the hon. Lady to give her the facts. Do Members know what the facts will say? The facts show that life expectancy is going up—I think I have made that point. Opposition Members may not like the fact that things are getting better in this country, but we will make sure that we level up, so that things get better in all parts of this country. We welcome progress, but we demand more.

Several hon. Members rose—

Matt Hancock

I am going to make some progress and talk about the long-term solutions we are seeking on social care. For all its many strengths, it is clear that the system cannot remain as it is. Three out of four over-65s will face some care costs in their lifetime, and approximately one in 10 will face lifetime costs of more than £100,000. We need a long-term funding solution, so that the system can continue to do all that we ask of it long into the future. Crucially, we need a solution that solves the problem, commands the widest possible support and stands the test of time. We know in this House that that challenge has been ducked for many years; we have had more than a dozen commissions, reviews and reports, and more than two decades of inaction, from Governments of all political stripes. We do not need another commission —we need a plan. So in our manifesto we set out our three-point plan to solve the crisis, as referred to in our amendment tonight, which I hope the whole House will support.

The first point is to deliver the funding that is needed now to stabilise the system. The funding will provide certainty for local authorities and providers while we put in place the long-term solution. At the last spending round, we said that would make an extra £1.5 billion available in 2020-21. That includes £1 billion of additional grant funding and the 2% adult social care precept, allowing councils access to a further half a billion pounds. Overall, that is part of a 4.4% real-terms increase in local authority core spending in 2021, and that spending comes on top of £2.5 billion in existing social care grants that will be maintained. All in all, our investment since 2015 has allowed an 11% cash-terms rise in social care spending by councils. So the amount of money going into the system is going up, and I am very glad about that, but clearly further progress needs to be made.

Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)

Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing a distributional analysis of where that money is coming from and who it is going to?

Matt Hancock

The £1 billion comes from general taxation and the half a billion comes from the social care precept, and we have been absolutely clear about that.

The second part of the plan is to recommit to seeking a cross-party solution. In my view, past attempts at reform have not failed for lack of ideas or good will on the part of many people and many policy makers; they have failed because solving this problem is not just a task of policy making, but an act of political economy. The consequences of the decisions on the reform of social care will play out over decades and, as with past reforms—for instance, pension auto-enrolment—this is best done with cross-party support.

​Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)

Last year, the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and I set up the all-party group on social care. We produced a report on the professionalisation of the workforce, which looked, in particular, at the undervaluing of the wider workforce in pay, training and qualifications. Will the Secretary of State commit to looking at that report, as the basis of his cross-party consensus?

Matt Hancock

Yes, I have. As the hon. Member knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) was my Parliamentary Private Secretary, and we talked about this a lot, so I welcome that work. Indeed, the amount of work from various Select Committees and groups in this House has been considerable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) made clear earlier. There has been an awful lot of reports and of very good work, including the work to which the hon. Member has contributed.

Barbara Keeley

The right hon. Member knows that I raised with him on the day of the first Queen’s Speech, in October last year, the need for us to set up cross-party talks. He has done nothing about that since then—nothing has happened on that. There was some vague talk about sitting down with the former Minister for Care for a cup of tea, but that is not cross-party talks. Will he say now: is he going to set up cross-party talks?

Matt Hancock

We will fulfil all the commitments in the manifesto, which, as the hon. Member set out, includes one on this subject, and that is part of our plan.

Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)

We have been talking for some time. Indeed, we legislated: we decided to legislate for Dilnot. Can the Secretary of State take us through why we resiled from that position?

Matt Hancock

The honest truth is that that decision was made in the 2015-17 Parliament, and it was a decision the Government made at the time. I think that we need to take action to solve this problem, and that is what we are planning to do. The third part of the plan—[Interruption.] Well, I am halfway through explaining the plan.

The third part of the plan is to seek a solution that brings dignity and security to all those who need social care, with a system in which nobody needing care is forced to sell their home to pay for it. Such a solution would go against one of the most basic human impulses, which is the drive to provide for one’s family. We want to encourage people to save and we want to reward them for the fruits of their endeavours. As we said in our manifesto, we want to guarantee that

“nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it.”

We are determined to tackle this challenge in this Parliament, and to bring forward these reforms.

Fixing the funding, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) said, is only half of the equation, and the other half needs attention, too. We should be helping more people to live at home for longer; finding a cure for dementia, because we refuse to accept that dementia is an inevitable part of ageing; and harnessing technology to improve ​care. The stereotype of social care as a kind of digital backwater is increasingly out of date; there are many examples of brilliant social care organisations, public and private, using wearables and new technology to support the round-the-clock care that they give. We should also be breaking down the silos between health and social care. We will always support our carers, both paid and unpaid alike.

Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)

In the 1990s, the Germans were grappling with exactly the same problem we are grappling with now, with regional imbalances, a postcode lottery in funding and a lack of a cohesive social offer. They came up with social care insurance—there was cross-party consensus, and it is now not a political issue—and it works. Will the Secretary of State look at that model?

Matt Hancock

That is the sort of contribution I think we need in this debate. We should not be saying, “We have one answer, and we won’t engage on anything else”, but saying, “Here is an interesting answer, and let’s solve it.” We are committed to solving it in this Parliament. We will not duck the difficult decisions, we will take the action that is needed and we will secure the future of social care in this country. As we are increasingly an older society, let us also be a wiser society, and commit to fixing this problem once and for all.

Below is the text of the statement made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health, in the House of Commons on 26 February 2020.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on covid-19, or coronavirus. As of this morning, 7,132 people in the UK have been tested for the virus. So far, 13 people in the UK have tested positive, of whom eight have now been discharged from hospital. We expect more cases here. As planned, 115 people left supported isolation at Kents Hill Park in Milton Keynes on 23 February. All tested negative for covid-19. On Saturday, 32 people from the Diamond Princess cruise ship were repatriated and taken to Arrowe Park, where they will remain in supported isolation. Four of those have tested positive and been transferred to specialist centres. British tourists are currently being quarantined in a hotel in Tenerife, and the Foreign Office is in contact with them.

We have a clear four-part plan to respond to the outbreak of this disease: contain, delay, research and mitigate. We are taking all necessary measures to minimise the risk to the public. We have put in place enhanced monitoring measures at UK airports, and health information is available at all international airports, ports and international train stations. We have established a supported isolation facility at Heathrow to cater for international passengers who are tested, and to maximise infection control and free up NHS resources.

The NHS is testing a very large number of people who have travelled back from affected countries, the vast majority of whom test negative. In the past few days, we have published guidance for schools, employers, first responders, social care and the travel industry on how to handle suspected cases. If anyone has been in contact with a suspected case in a childcare or an educational setting, no special measures are required while test results are awaited. There is no need to close the school or send other students or staff home. Once the results arrive, those who test negative will be advised individually about returning to education. In most cases, closure of the childcare or education setting will be unnecessary, but this will be a local decision based on various factors, including professional advice. Schools should be guided by the advice on the gov.uk website, and contact their regional schools commissioner in case of queries. I can tell the House that in the coming days we will roll out a wider public information campaign.

While the Government and the NHS have plans in place for all eventualities, everyone can play their part. To reiterate, our advice is for everyone to take sensible precautions, such as using tissues and washing hands more. Yesterday we updated our advice to returning travellers from northern Italy—defined as anywhere north of, but not including, Pisa and Florence—as well as from Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar. Those returning from Iran, the lockdown areas of northern Italy and the special care zone in South Korea should self-isolate and call NHS 111, even if they have no symptoms.

We are working closely with the World Health Organisation, the G7 and the wider international community to ensure that we are ready for all eventualities. We are co-ordinating research efforts with international partners. Our approach has at all times been guided by the chief medical officer, working on the basis of the best possible scientific evidence. The public can be assured that we have a clear plan to contain, delay, research and mitigate, and that we are working methodically through each step to keep the public safe. I commend this statement to the House.

Below is the text of the statement made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health, in the House of Commons on 11 February 2020.

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will update the House on the response to the Wuhan coronavirus.

I have laid an instrument before the House to confirm the power we have taken to isolate those at risk of spreading the virus, and if necessary to keep them isolated as part of our belt-and-braces approach to protecting the public. The powers are proportionate and will help us slow down transmission of the virus and make it easier for NHS and public health staff to do their jobs.

The clinical advice about the risks to the public has not changed, and remains moderate. As of today, eight people in England have tested positive for coronavirus; all are receiving expert care from the NHS, which is well prepared and equipped to deal with this kind of situation. Contact tracing of the first four cases has been undertaken rapidly and is now complete, while tracing for the latest four cases is ongoing. This contact tracing itself identified five of the cases, a tribute to the skill and tenacity of Public Health England staff, as well as finding a further five British nationals in France, who have also tested positive for the virus. They are now receiving treatment, and the Foreign Office is following up with consular support.

On Sunday, 105 more British nationals and dependants from Hubei province landed safely at Brize Norton. They are now in isolation facilities at Kents Hill park in Milton Keynes and are receiving all the necessary medical attention. I want to pay tribute to the Foreign Office and the MOD, as well as Milton Keynes Council and Milton Keynes hospital and my own team, for their hard work and efficiency in ensuring that this all went smoothly. These steps are, of course, in addition to those for people now reaching the end of their isolation on the Wirral.

Turning to the efforts to contain the outbreak in China, the Foreign Office is advising against all travel to Hubei province and all but essential travel to mainland China. Last week, we issued new advice to all travellers returning to the UK from China, Hong Kong, Macau, Malaysia, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand. That advice is clear: if you develop symptoms of cough, fever or shortness of breath, you should call NHS 111 and immediately self-isolate for 14 days, even if symptoms are minor; if you have returned from Hubei, you should self-isolate and contact NHS 111 even if you have no symptoms.

My officials discussed the incubation period with the World Health Organisation this morning. The current evidence shows that a 14-day incubation period remains appropriate. We will continue to monitor emerging evidence closely with our international partners.

As I said last week, dealing with this disease is a marathon, not a sprint. The situation will get worse before it gets better. We will be guided by the science. Be in no doubt: we will do everything that is effective to tackle this virus and keep people safe. We are investing £40 million in vaccine research and are working with international efforts on therapeutics, and today I can announce to the House the immediate launch of a capital facility to support any urgent works the NHS needs for the coronavirus response, such as the creation of further isolation areas and other necessary facilities.

Finally, there are actions each and every one of us can take—simple but effective steps like washing hands and using tissues. We will take all necessary precautions to keep the public safe, and I commend this statement to the House.

Below is the text of the statement made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 4 February 2020.

Today the report of the independent inquiry into the issues raised by the former breast surgeon Ian Paterson has been published.

This report follows two years of work by the inquiry, led by Bishop Graham James. The Bishop has adopted a strong commitment to a “patients and families first” approach to public disclosure, which means that the process of public disclosure began earlier this morning with the patients and families themselves.

The report contains an analysis of the circumstances surrounding Ian Paterson’s malpractice that has affected so many patients and considers other past and current ​practices. It also tells the stories of patients who came forward to provide evidence to the inquiry, which bears testament to their courage. As such it makes for difficult reading and it is with deep regret that we have to acknowledge the failure of the NHS and the independent sector to protect patients from Paterson’s malpractice.

The public should be able to trust that a health professional will never again be allowed to place personal gain or advancement over the best interests of his or her patients whether care is funded by the NHS or privately. It is therefore essential that the whole of the health sector responds quickly and effectively to the lessons of this inquiry. The Government will give a thorough and detailed consideration of their findings over the coming weeks.

We expect now for all the relevant agencies and organisations both nationally and locally, and across the whole healthcare sector to give this report urgent and thorough attention.

Once that work is done, the relevant agencies will decide what steps to take next.

Copies of the report will be laid before the House and will be available from the Vote Office and at: https://www.gov.uk.

An oral statement will be delivered to the House today.

Below is the text of the statement made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health, in the House of Commons on 23 January 2020.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to inform the House about the outbreak of a new coronavirus in China and the UK’s response to protect the British public. As of this morning, 571 cases have been confirmed by the Chinese Government, and 17 people are reported to have died of this new strain of respiratory illness. All the fatalities have so far been contained to mainland China. However, this is a rapidly developing situation and the number of cases, and deaths, is likely to be higher than those that have been confirmed so far. I expect them to rise further. It has been reported that the Chinese authorities have placed further transport restrictions on the epicentre of the outbreak, Wuhan city, including on international flights. A small number of cases of the new coronavirus have now been detected in other countries, including Thailand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the United States. Experts at the World Health Organisation are meeting again today to determine whether this new outbreak now constitutes a “public health emergency of international concern”.

Most cases of the new coronavirus so far have been non-fatal. In these cases, most people experience cold and flu-like symptoms and then recover. However, there have been a small number of cases so far where it has proven more serious and fatal.

There are no confirmed cases of this new infection in the UK so far. We have been closely monitoring the situation in Wuhan and have put in place proportionate precautionary measures. Our approach has at all times been guided by the advice of the chief medical officer, Professor Chris Whitty. Since yesterday, Public Health England officials have been carrying out enhanced monitoring of direct flights from Wuhan city, and all passengers on direct flights from China will receive information on what to do if they fall ill. Professor Whitty and Public Health England, aided by independent experts, are in close contact with their international counterparts, and are continually monitoring the scientific evidence as it emerges.

The chief medical officer has revised the risk to the UK population from “very low” to “low”, and has concluded that while there is an increased likelihood that cases may arise in this country, we are well prepared and well equipped to deal with them. The UK is one of the first countries to have developed a world-leading test for the new coronavirus. The NHS is ready to respond appropriately to any cases that emerge. Clinicians in both primary and secondary care have already received advice, covering initial detection and investigation of possible cases, infection prevention and control, and clinical diagnostics. Acting on the advice of Professor Whitty, we have updated our travel guidance to British citizens to advise against all but essential travel to Wuhan city.

We are working closely with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations. The public can be assured that the whole of the UK is always well prepared for these types of outbreaks, and we will remain vigilant and keep our response under constant review in the light of emerging scientific evidence.

I commend this statement to the House.​

Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)

I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement, and for updating the House this morning.

The coronavirus is indeed very concerning, and I am grateful for the work of Public Health England and the Department on it so far, especially in screening passengers on direct flights from Wuhan. However, a passenger arriving from Wuhan yesterday said that he had gone through virtually no screening, but was given a leaflet. Does the Secretary of State have any response to that?

Will flights from other Chinese cities, not just Wuhan, be monitored, and when does the Minister think monitoring might begin? Will there be specific traveller advice for UK citizens travelling into China who have existing conditions that may mean they need to take more care?

As the Minister said, Public Health England has assessed the risk of the coronavirus being spread to the UK as “low”. In the event of the virus spreading to the UK, are there contingency plans and funds to prevent further spreading, to deal with the scale of the problem?

As the Minister knows, we are in the middle of flu season, so I do not want to cause any undue anxiety, especially as—as we have heard—there are no cases in the UK at the moment, but can he please advise people watching who may be concerned about their own symptoms of what they should do?

We all know that the NHS has a tremendous record in responding to similar incidents, such as Ebola and monkeypox. We can certainly be proud of our public health record in these areas and can be confident in how public health bodies will respond to this incident. There is a chance that a global pandemic can be avoided if Governments across the world take the right measures in a timely fashion.

I thank the Minister for his update today, and would be grateful if he could provide some further clarity on all the points I have raised.

Matt Hancock

I appreciate the cross-party approach that is being taken to this outbreak, as reflected in the shadow Minister’s remarks. I shall address the specific points that she raised. On the reports from the flight that arrived yesterday, it is important that we get the enhanced monitoring right. The challenge is that symptoms for the Wuhan novel coronavirus do not usually appear until five to seven days, and sometimes up to 14 days, after a person has been infected, and therefore the advice is that the most important part of the monitoring is to ensure that everybody knows what to do if the symptoms arise, because often the symptoms will not be there for somebody on the flight. Having said that, we do not expect further flights from Wuhan, because the Chinese authorities have taken steps to stop travel out of the city.

The hon. Lady asked whether we will be monitoring flights from other Chinese cities or, indeed, from anywhere else. The current evidence suggests that the vast majority of cases are in Wuhan. Obviously we keep that under constant review, and we will not hesitate to take further steps, if necessary, to protect the British public.

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)

We have a big and vibrant Chinese community and a very large Chinese community centre in Harlow. What information is being ​sent to such Chinese community centres? Many members of the Chinese community have relatives in Hong Kong, so what will be done if this disease reaches Hong Kong?

Matt Hancock

There is evidence of potential cases of the coronavirus in Hong Kong, although the vast majority of cases are in Wuhan city. We will keep that under review.

The advice to my right hon. Friend’s Chinese residents is exactly the same as the advice to all, which is to avoid anything but essential travel to Wuhan city and that direct flights from Wuhan city appear to have ceased. An awful lot of people who work for Public Health England are already in Harlow, with more to come. I am sure he would want to join me in thanking them for the vigilant work they are undertaking.

Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)

It is obvious that the scale of this operation should not be underestimated. Shutting down a city the size of London as it prepares to celebrate Chinese new year is an extraordinary undertaking. What support has the international community offered to the Chinese authorities, particularly the health services, as they cope with this unprecedented strain on resources?

Some of my questions have already been asked, so I will just ask about the World Health Organisation, which is meeting today. What communication have the UK Government had with the WHO? Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the Government will remain updated, in real time, on developments and on what steps, if any, are required in the UK?

Finally, I have a number of Chinese constituents, as we probably all have, and English is difficult for many of them. When we give information to Chinese communities in the UK, is it provided in different languages?

Matt Hancock

Yes, the advice will be available today in Mandarin and Cantonese. The UK is heavily engaged in the WHO response and, of course, we are engaging with the Chinese Government. That engagement principally happens through the WHO, which has well-established procedures to make sure we understand the nature of the outbreak so that scientists can investigate the epidemiology and come to an evolving scientific analysis of what is happening. We then base our decisions, as much as possible, on the scientific advice that flows from that. The chief medical officer, who is an expert on these issues, is co-ordinating the work here in the UK.

Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)

Many UK universities, not least my local Huddersfield University, have strong links with the Wuhan University of Science and Technology. What particular advice is the Secretary of State’s Department giving to UK universities, particularly those with a large Chinese student population?

Matt Hancock

We are not giving them specific advice. We are giving the same advice to everybody, which is to avoid all non-essential travel to Wuhan, but I am happy to take away the point that we should communicate, through Universities UK, with all UK universities to make sure the message gets to students directly so that they hear the advice that is there for everybody, which is to avoid all but essential travel.

​Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)

My thoughts go out to all the residents of Wuhan, Manchester’s sister city. Sadly, the news of this outbreak could not have come at a worse time, as residents are preparing to celebrate the lunar new year. What more can the Secretary of State do, in light of our expertise in coronaviruses, to support the Chinese Government? We have a sizeable Chinese community in Manchester, so we should raise awareness in this country.

Matt Hancock

I will ensure that the authorities in Manchester are fully apprised of, and keep up to date with, our advice, which, as I say, is based on the best scientific evidence, to make sure that Manchester and its sister city deal with this as well and as appropriately as they can.

Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)

I thank my right hon. Friend for the comprehensive update and, in particular, for the detail on the test the UK has developed for the coronavirus. What consular assistance is being provided to British nationals caught up in affected areas in China and elsewhere?

Matt Hancock

My hon. Friend raises an important question. There are approximately 11 million people in Wuhan city, including British nationals. As far as we know, we have two UK staff in our consulate in Wuhan and 15 locally employed staff. Of course we are ensuring that they get all the support they need, and they are available to provide consular assistance to British nationals in Wuhan city.

Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)

The House appreciates the fact that the Secretary of State has come here so promptly to make this statement. Of course we all hope that an outbreak here does not happen, but what is the current advice to members of the public about the use of face masks if it does? One thing about these outbreaks is that people look at what measures are being taken and what people are doing in countries where the disease has taken hold, and then ask the authorities here, “Why aren’t we doing the same?” It would be helpful to know this in anticipation; presumably it will come from guidance given by the chief medical officer.

Matt Hancock

That is right. We have well-established procedures for dealing with a potential outbreak such as this, be it of flu or a coronavirus. Our advice at the moment to the UK public is that the risk is low—of course we will keep that under review. We try very much only to put forward proposals that are clinically appropriate. The wearing of face masks is not deemed clinically necessary now. Of course we keep that under review, and we will be guided by the science.

Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)

I thank the Secretary of State for the comprehensive update. We know that scientists are already working hard to find a vaccine for this newly identified strain of coronavirus. Given the importance of vaccines in combating serious diseases such as this, does he agree that education about vaccines ​is more important than ever in this age of disinformation? What conversations has he had with colleagues to combat fake news on vaccines?

Matt Hancock

The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point, on which I wholly concur in the round: vaccines are incredibly important and valuable. We have a long-established process for working out where we should vaccinate. In this case, because of the nature of the virus, it is unlikely that a vaccine is going to be available—there is not one now—so that is not the route we should be looking at, but of course we will keep that under review. On her general point, when advised to take a vaccine, such as the flu vaccine for the winter or the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine for children, people should vaccinate, because it is both good for them and good for their neighbour.

Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)

I thank the Secretary of State for the statement. In Hull, including in my constituency, we have a lot of Chinese students. I just want to be clear about the advice being given to anyone worried about symptoms that might develop, as he said that that might happen up to 14 days after arriving in the UK. What advice should those students be given about what to do and who to contact?

Matt Hancock

Anybody with concerns, be they a student in Hull or elsewhere, should contact their doctor. As the first port of call, 24 hours a day, they can call NHS 111, which has clinical advice available around the clock. All the 111 contact centres have been updated and will be kept updated with the most appropriate advice.

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

First, may I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his clear commitment? Throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, people like you and me, Mr Speaker—you are a type 1 diabetic and I am a type 2 diabetic—have a chronic disease. Those who are diabetic and many others across the United Kingdom worry about the killer impact of this virus.

I note that the United States of America has diverted flights to specific screening areas. I am sure that the Minister and many others in the House saw the news this morning, as I did. On the flight that arrived this morning, there were three different opinions among those coming off the plane: one said that they had had no advice or discussion whatsoever; the second one got a leaflet; and the third one said that they had some tests done before they left China. So it seems that mixed messages are coming out. It is important that we have a clear policy and that everyone flying here and every person here feels assured.

Matt Hancock

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We had a divert in place for that flight to ensure that it went to a part of Heathrow where there are the procedures and processes to be able to deal with this issue. There was enhanced monitoring of that flight— not all of that is immediately obvious to the passengers themselves. Crucially, we understand that the Chinese Government have stopped future flights. We will of course keep all that under review.